Jewish Congregation Sues for Return of Deeds To 5000 Burial Plots

 An unusual suit was filed this week in a New York state trial court by a Bukharian Jewish religious organization which is seeking to recover nearly 5,000 burial plot deeds that the organization says belong to it. The complaint (full text) in Bukharian Jewish Community Center v. Nektalova, (NY County Sup. Ct., filed 12/6/2022) alleges that United Bukharian Congregation holds cemetery documents in trust for members of the Bukharian Jewish community in New York. One of its members, 92-year old Roman Nektalov, was in charge of providing the relevant deeds to cemeteries and families when funerals of members were being arranged.  During COVID, Nektalov took the deeds to his home so he could distribute them from there. A domestic dispute arose between Nektalov and his wife. His wife obtained a protective order which prevents Nektalov from accessing the deeds in his home. She later filed for divorce and refuses to turn the deeds over to the religious organizations, claiming that they are marital property. The Jewish organizations ask the court to hold that they are the rightful owners of the deeds, and to order them turned over to them or to a receiver. AMNY reports on the lawsuit. [Names in post corrected]

Church Cannot Remove Cremated Remains Over Objections Of Families

In Church of the Holy Spirit of Wayland v. Heinrich, (MA App., May 5, 2022), a Massachusetts state appellate court held that a church which had sold its property was not free to relocate cremated remains buried in its churchyard over the objections of families of those buried there. In the case, an Episcopal parish that had ceased operating sold it church building and attached burial ground to a Coptic church.  The Coptic church wanted to develop the land; it also had religious objections to cremation. The court said in part:

[I]n the absence of a governing statute, common law trust principles apply to the disinterment of human remains from a dedicated burial ground until the families of the deceased have abandoned the remains or the burial ground is no longer recognizable as such....

It is uncontested that the Coptic church has a sincerely held opposition to cremation on religious grounds. The next question, however, is whether judicial relief in favor of the families would substantially burden the Coptic church's exercise of its religious beliefs.... [W]e fail to see how a judicial order preventing the Coptic church from removing those remains would constitute government interference with that church's free exercise of religion rights. And it bears noting that the unilateral disinterment of the remains potentially might implicate the families' own free exercise of religion rights.

The court also concluded that allowing two parties who had purchased burial rights for their own remains to be buried in the churchyard next to remains of their families would not infringe the free exercise rights of the Coptic church:

[I]t simply would prevent the Coptic church from interfering with rights that the individuals themselves hold in the property. Nor has the Coptic church demonstrated that such a judicial order could be seen as compelling it to endorse cremation.

Relocation Of Native American Graves Can Proceed

In Asher v. Clay County Board of Education, (ED KY, Feb. 11, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court refused to enjoin a school district from relocating graves from cemetery land which it had purchased. The school board followed procedures in Kentucky law to obtain permission for the relocation.  Plaintiffs claim the the cemetery contains graves of members of the White Top Band of Native Indians.  The court held that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not apply because the cemetery is not on federal or tribal lands. The court rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ actions would prevent religious fulfilment.... But like the respondents in Lyng [v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n], Plaintiffs are not being coerced into violating their religious beliefs, nor are they being penalized because of their religious or traditional beliefs or practices. Instead, they seek to overturn the lawful process undertaken by the BOE to move the graves in the Hoskins Cemetery so that Plaintiffs can continue to practice their traditional and religious beliefs.... This is not “free exercise” of religion protected by the First Amendment. Rather, it amounts to Plaintiffs seeking to exact a benefit from the local government and to “divest the [BOE] of its right to use what is, after all, its land.”

9th Circuit Hears Arguments On Destruction of Native American Sacred Site

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Slockish v. U.S. Department of Transportation. The facts of the case involving land near Mount Hood in Oregon are described in appellants' opening brief (full text) in part as follows:

Plaintiffs are members of federally-recognized tribes who long practiced their faith at a small sacred site called Ana Kwna Nchi Nchi Patat, or the “Place of Big Big Trees.”.... In the 1980s, when the Government proposed widening a nearby highway, one of Plaintiffs’ leaders informed the Government of the site’s historic and religious significance, including the graves and stone altar. In response, the Government modified its project to protect the site. But in 2008, the Government widened the highway again to add a center turn lane. This time, it protected a nearby wetlands, but completely destroyed the sacred site—cutting down the old-growth trees, bulldozing the burial ground and stone altar, and covering the area under a massive earthen berm.

Becket Law issued a press release on the case. (See prior related posting.)

Virginia County Allows Muslim Cemetery, Settling DOJ and Private Litigation

The  Justice Department yesterday announced that it had filed a Notice of Dismissal in United States v. Stafford County Virginia, (ED VA, Oct. 14, 2021). The Department said that it is dismissing its RLUIPA lawsuit because the county has repealed the ordinances that prevented the All Muslim Association of America (AMAA) from developing a religious cemetery for Muslims. the county has also approved a site plan for the new cemetery and has settled a private lawsuit by agreeing to pay AMAA $500,000 in damages.

Michigan Mosque Sues Cemetery Over Need To Prepay For Grave Sites

In May, suit was filed in a state trial court in Dearborn, Michigan by a local mosque which claims that a cemetery is attempting in breach of contract to double the price of grave space for mosque members during the COVID-19 emergency.  On July 2, the mosque filed a motion (full text) for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. The allegations in American Moslem Society v. Midwest Memorial Group, LLC, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 7/2/2020), are that the mosque entered three separate contracts over the years for the purchase of a large number of graves at a discount price, and then made the graves available to its members when needed by them. The mosque has paid $380,000 for 608 of the 1000 graves acquired under its latest contract. The cemetery now contends that the mosque must pay in advance for all 1000 graves before it may use any of them. Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Disposition alleges in part:

Defendant's unjustified refusal to allow burials in AMS III at a time of great suffering and need in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly part of a grossly improper attempt to shake down Plaintiff and its members.  Defendant's April 14 letter cynically proposes a simple "cure" for the problem.  Plaintiff either 1)  pays the amount of $353,750 remaining ..., or 2) waives its rights under the 2017 Contract and enters into a new contract in which the cost of graves ... is roughly doubled.

... Defendant's demands are particularly coercive in light of its knowledge that the AMS community is extraordinarily tight knit and places a high premium on having its loved ones buried in close proximity to each other and to their mosque, which is located adjacent to the cemetery.

Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.

DOJ Sues Virginia County Over Restrictions On Creating Muslim Cemetery

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal RLUIPA lawsuit against Stafford County, Virginia. The complaint (full text) in United States v. Stafford County, Virginia, (ED VA, filed 5/19/2020) alleges in part that the county has imposed:

restrictive zoning requirements that preclude the All Muslim Association of America ... from establishing an Islamic cemetery on land it owns, thereby impeding its religious practice of providing low-cost burial services to persons of the Islamic faith. The County’s actions constitute a substantial burden on the free exercise of the religion of the All Muslim Association, in violation of the  Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000....

The Justice Department issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Nazi Symbols On 75-Year Old POW Gravestones In VA Cemeteries Raise Protests

Yesterday, bipartisan leadership of the House Veterans Affairs and Appropriations Committees wrote the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (full text of letter) demanding removal or alterations to the gravestones of three World War II German POW's in VA cemeteries.  According to the Military Times earlier this month:

At issue are three grave sites at two VA cemeteries: Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery in Texas and Fort Douglas Post Cemetery in Utah. Both were used to inter dozens of unclaimed remains of enemy troops following World War II.

While most of the foreign troops’ grave markers list only names and dates of death, the three in question are also engraved with with a swastika in the center of an iron cross and in inscription in German which reads “He died far from his home for the Führer, people and fatherland.”...

Veteran Affairs officials in a statement said the headstones date back to the 1940s. Army officials oversaw both cemeteries at the time and approved the inscriptions and inclusion of the swastika.

“The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 assigns stewardship responsibilities to federal agencies, including VA and Army, to protect historic resources, including those that recognize divisive historical figures or events,” National Cemetery Administration spokesman Les' Melnyk said in response to questions about the graves.

“For this reason, VA will continue to preserve these headstones, like every past administration has.”

Military Religious Freedom Foundation which originally called attention to the gravestones has background and further information.

Indian Tribe Sues Over Exclusion From Committee Dealing With Ancestors' Remains

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by a non-federally recognized Indian tribe against Texas officials involved in redevelopment of the Alamo complex complaining about the tribe's exclusion from a committee dealing with human remains found at the site. Plaintiffs say their ancestors are among those buried there, and some of the tribes allowed on the committee are responsible for the deaths of those buried in the cemetery.

The complaint (full text) in Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation v. Alamo Trust, Inc., (WD TX, filed 9/10/2019), contends that requirements of the San Antonio's zoning laws that refer to the National Historic Preservation Act are not being followed in dealing with a cemetery on the redevelopment site. Instead authorities are applying the Native American Grave Protection Act which excludes non-recognized tribes. The complaint alleges in part:

Defendants are ignoring the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development Code and arbitrarily applying NAGPRA for the purpose of excluding the Plaintiffs and other lineal descendants from participation. The reason for this is obvious, the Defendants are planning to conduct their archaeological activities in a manner that violates local, state and federal laws in an attempt to reduce cost and time.

Plaintiffs also complain that they were denied use of the Alamo Chapel for their annual Sunrise Memorial Ceremony. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Court Refuses To Order Return of WWII Remains To Supposed Next-of-Kin

In Patterson v. Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, (WD TX, July 29, 2019), a Texas federal district court refused to order return to plaintiffs of the remains of seven servicemen who were killed or perished as POW's in the Philippines in World War II.  The court explains:

The parties dispute the extent to which the remains are identified. Plaintiffs argue that they have a property interest in these remains and that Defendants’ retention of these remains impinges on Plaintiffs’ religious practices and Plaintiffs’ interest in securing proper burial.

The court rejected plaintiffs' due process, 4th Amendment, free exercise and RFRA claims to the remains at issue, saying in part:

They state “the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint show that the Government has placed a substantial burden on the Families’ exercise of religion.”... 

The record reveals nothing further about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs or how Defendants have burdened them. Plaintiffs do not indicate the nature, substance, or contours of their beliefs, or even whether all Plaintiffs share the same religious beliefs. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that a “proper burial is essential for many practicing Christians,” but they produce no declarations or other evidence outlining these beliefs. Defendants thus contest whether Plaintiffs’ beliefs are sincerely held. 

The Court is inclined to grant summary judgment on the sincerity grounds ... given Plaintiffs’ total lack of evidence. Courts have cautioned, however, that “[t]hough the sincerity inquiry is important, it must be handled with a light touch.... 

In keeping with this tradition ... the Court assumes Plaintiffs show sincerely held beliefs and concludes alternatively that Plaintiffs do not show a substantial interference with these beliefs. As Defendants note, Plaintiffs allege only that their beliefs require a “proper burial,” but without any explanation of what makes a “proper burial in accordance with each respective family’s religious beliefs,” the Court cannot assess the alleged interference.... Thus, Plaintiffs do not meet their initial burden for either their RFRA or Free Exercise claims.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Loss of Sepulcher Claims

In Gutnick v Hebrew Free Burial Society for the Poor of the City of Brooklyn, (Kings Cty.. NY Sup Ct., June 28, 2019), a New York trial court refused to dismiss common law loss of sepulcher claims by the daughter of an Orthodox Jewish man who died. According to the court:

On April 13, 2014, at an open grave site, plaintiff and other mourners gathered around a coffin believed to be the decedent. During the funeral service, plaintiff noticed a handwritten sticker on the coffin with a name that was not the decedent. Plaintiff alerted the Rabbi performing the ritual and was advised that Orthodox Jewish law forbids the opening of a casket once it has been closed. However, cemetery representatives later opened the casket, in plaintiff's presence and discovered the body of an unknown woman. It is further alleged that the location of the decedent was unknown for several hours. Later, Capitol, HFBA, Mount Richmond Cemetery, and Pyramid representatives informed plaintiff that her father may have been buried in another grave. Upon identifying the grave, the representatives disinterred the coffin and opened it to discover the decedent's body, which plaintiff identified.

DOJ Settles RLUIPA Zoning Claims With Texas City

The Department of Justice announced yesterday that it has reached an agreement with the City of Farmersville, Texas to resolve allegations that the city violated RLUIPA when in 2017 it denied a Muslim organization approval for construction of a cemetery:

The settlement agreement resolves a lawsuit the United States filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. After the City denied the Islamic Association’s application to build a religious cemetery, the United States opened an investigation of the City’s actions in September 2017. In August 2018, the United States notified the City that it had concluded that the City had violated RLUIPA and intended to file suit, and offered the City an opportunity to negotiate a resolution. In September 2018, the City and the Islamic Association entered into a separate agreement allowing for the approval of the cemetery and in December 2018, the City approved the Islamic Association’s application to develop the land as a cemetery.

Here is the complaint in United States v. City of Farmersville, Texas, (ED TX, filed 4/16/2019) filed yesterday as part of the negotiations.

Families of WW II Vets May Move Ahead With Suit To Recover Remains

In Patterson v. Defense POW/ MIA Accounting Agency, (WD TX, Oct. 23, 2018), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss substantive and procedural due process, and free exercise and RFRA claims by the families of seven American Army service members who died in the Philippines in World War II. The families sought recovery of the remains of their veterans so they can be properly buried.  The remains are interred as "Unknowns" in the Manila American Cemetery, but the families believe that they can now identify in which of the Unknowns' graves the seven service members are buried. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs allege that the government’s refusal to return allegedly identified remains to the appropriate families for burial “shocks the conscience.” ... Plaintiffs argue that their allegations that the remains are in fact identified, taken as true, render Defendants’ withholding of the remains a substantive due process violation.... At this stage, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a substantive due process violation....

[G]iven Plaintiffs’ private interests regarding their family members’ remains and the alleged erroneous deprivation of an opportunity to be heard, the Court finds that, at this stage, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege a procedural due process violation that will benefit from further fact development.....

Plaintiffs allege that their free exercise of their sincerely held religious tradition of burial has been burdened because the government refuses to return the remains of their relatives.... These allegations are plausible on their face and meet the pleading requirements at this stage of litigation for both a Free Exercise claim and a RFRA claim

Church of England Court Permits Exhumation of Atheist From Hallowed Ground

The Hertfordshire Mercury reports on an unusual decision in Britain last week by a Church of England Consistory Court.  In In re Chestnut Cemetery (No. 1) re Exhumation of Hugill, (Consist. Ct., July 18, 2018), the Court permitted the exhumation of the cremated remains of an infant buried in 1982 in a Church of England cemetery.  The infant's parents are both Atheists, and they did not know at the time of the burial that the cemetery site was hallowed ground. They discovered this in 2017 and now seek to have the remains reburied in an un-consecrated plot. The court said in part:

The starting point is the presumption that the burial of human remains in consecrated ground is permanent.... However the Court has a discretion to permit exhumation in exceptional circumstances....

On the case that has been presented to me it appears that the most important and relevant of the factors referred to above is mistake. In particular, Mrs Wilson’s evidence that she was at all material times, until on or around September 2017, unaware that Lizzie’s remains had been interred in consecrated ground by reason of her total (and understandable) lack of contact with the funeral arrangements when they were made, and her evidence that, as an Atheist, the burial in these circumstances is something she would never have agreed to if she had been informed. These facts, in my judgment, amount to a fundamental mistake as to the arrangements made for the interment of Lizzie’s remains.

Court Says Tribe Has Standing, But Did Not Prove Its RFRA Claim

As previously reported, in March an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds.  In reviewing the magistrate's recommendation, the district court in Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, June 11, 2018) held, disagreeing with the magistrate judge, that plaintiffs have standing to bring the challenge.  However the court still held that the RFRA claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of a substantial burden on their religious exercise.  Reporting on the decision, KUOW News says that members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and members of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde will appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Destruction of Native American Burial Site Did Not Violate RFRA

In Slockish v U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, March 2, 2018), an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds in widening a highway.  Relying on Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent, the court held:

As in Lyng and Navajo Nation, plaintiffs contend that the sacred site at issue, which is located on federal land, has been desecrated and destroyed. Yet, as in those cases, plaintiffs have not established that they are being coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions or that a governmental benefit is being conditioned upon conduct that would violate their religious beliefs. Without these critical elements, plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial burden under the RFRA.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

New Jersey Limit On Activities of Religious Cemeteries Is Upheld

In Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. Christie, (D NJ, Feb. 23, 2018), a New Jersey federal district court rejected due process and equal protection challenges to a 2015 New Jersey law that prohibits private religious cemeteries from selling headstones, vaults and monuments.  The law was enacted to extend to religious ceremonies the separation of industries law that previously applied only to non-religious cemeteries.  AP reports on the decision.

Church, Not Town, Owns Cemetery

In First Congregational Church of Harwich v. Eldredge, (MA Land Ct., Aug. 18, 2017), the Massachusetts Land Court held that the First Congregational Church of Harwich rather than the Town of Harwich has title to a cemetery adjacent to the Church and also has title to the Memorial Garden in which cremated remains of Church member families are buried. The litigation was filed when the Church objected to the Town's plans to move to another area of the cemetery the cremated remains that are now buried above unmarked and unknown graves.  The court said in part:

[L]ike the Church, the Town and the Cemetery Commission are entrusted to honor the dead. They have a special duty to honor the remains of those deceased whose descendants can no longer be found. Their authority does not extend to the power to order the existing cremains disinterred, but they are authorized to care for and preserve the area of the Memorial Garden under which the unidentified graves are located. The Cemetery Commission is permitted to take actions necessary for the preservation of these grave sites and to ensure that they are not further disturbed, including the power to bar any further interring of cremains in the Memorial Garden directly over the unmarked graves. The Church may continue to inter cremains in other areas of the Cemetery over which there are no ancient burial grounds.

Cape Cod Chronicle has a more extensive report on the decision.

Belarus Court Refuses To Bar Construction On Former Jewish Cemetery Sites

JTA reports that last week a court in Belarus  refused to grant an injunction against two construction projects on the sites of former Jewish cemeteries. The Tsentralny District Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to prevent construction of apartment buildings on two former Jewish cemeteries in the city of Gomel.  The court also refused to enjoin an ongoing project on the site of a former Jewish cemetery in the city of Mozyr.  The suit was filed by Yakov Goodman, an american Jewish activist who is attempting to preserve Jewish heritage sites in Belarus.  Authorities in Gomel said they did not have information indicating that the site was that of a cemetery.

Minnesota County Rejects Muslim Cemetery

City Pages reports that in Chisago County, Minnesota, county commissioners on Dec. 21 by a vote of 3-2 rejected the recommendation of the county Planning Commission refused to approve the use of 16 acres as a cemetery for the Islamic Community of Bosniaks, a Bosnian congregation with a mosque in Minneapolis-St. Paul.  The vote came after many neighbors expressed opposition on grounds ranging from traffic concerns, to the Muslim practice of burying their dead without a casket, to openly anti-Muslim attitudes.